I am aware this is satire. But this line is a direct quote from so many people, with a completely straight dace
There really wasn’t anything that was going to keep this individual from snapping and killing a lot of people if that’s what they really wanted
“But they could use a knife or a bat or a car!”
Without seeing the fact that having such free access to “tools” designed for the sole purpose of killing many people in as little time as possible.
Anyone against gun control is completely smooth brained. Anyone who complains about gun control, that the government shouldn’t control and regulate access, that they need multiple guns for “self defence” should not be allowed access to any gun.
Another common one is
“buh only criminals will have guns”,
except that never happens in any other developed nation.
Its for self defense
Sure. From other people with guns. And not a single shooting has been stopped by “good guy with gun™️”.
/rant
The second amendment is nominally there to allow people to form state militias in case the United States get invaded. With that in mind (and ignoring the many ways in which this kind of militia is completely irrelevant for defense purposes these days) we can come up with a reasonable compromise.
Anyone is allowed to own any gun they want. Access to ammunition is strictly regulated; only the state and shooting ranges are allowed to own ammo at all and the latter are under very strict supervision. Unlawful possession of ammunition is a felony.
In case the US Army is overrun each state will conscript all gun owners and issue them ammunition from the stockpile so they can go out and engage any enemy forces susceptible to infantry attack.
I’m sure all fans of the second amendment are going to love this plan. /s
That’s pretty much the setup that early colonists had, and it makes a lot of sense.
Ammo and muskets were kept in an armory, cuz it was dangerous to have powder laying around your candlelit home and muskets required frequent maintenance by skilled craftsmen.
Firearms were also somewhat collectively-owned, because they were primarily a means of collective defense.
Think about it: You’ve got the British in the ocean to the East, rival colonies to the North and South, indigenous tribes to the West, and the ever-present possibility of a mob of outlaws literally taking over your town.
It’s a very different world, and a very different relationship to weaponry.
btw. i believe this is somewhat similar to how Switzerland handles assault rifles nowadays. There are situations where you are allowed to have an assault rifle at home or even carry it in public but the ammo has to be locked away at a central storage that is guarded. They can very quickly hand out the ammo to the holders if necessary, i.e. for training on the shooting range. I am not Swiss so this is only hearsay though.
The second amendment is nominally there to allow people to form state militias in case the United States get invaded.
I want to add to this, because it’s never mentioned.
As with most problems in the world (prove me wrong), it can be traced back to British colonialism. The British usually disarmed everyone in their colonies, but American colonists were allowed to have guns and form militias because they were actively forcing Natives off their land.
Basically everyone had guns or access to them, and every colony had militias. Without them, there’s no chance the colonists could have then taken on the strongest empire in the world.
So now the line is that we need guns to fight tyranny, or whatever.
But… We did that. We won. We have a “democracy” now. We rounded up or killed all the Natives and fulfilled our Manifest Destiny™️. We have the most powerful military in the fucking visible universe.
Does my dumbass alcoholic neighbor Randy really need an AR to fight the gubmint?
The 2nd Amendment is from 1791, decades after the US had become an independent country. So you can’t blame this one on the British.
I don’t think they blamed the British. They just explained their theory as to why the colonists could take control.
As with most problems in the world (prove me wrong), it can be traced back to British colonialism.
I don’t think they blamed the British.
You may not think so, but your reading skills leaves something to be desired.
Fair enough…
Not entirely true. There was that guy in Colorado who drew his weapon, and took out an active shooter. Then the police rolled in, mistook him for the threat, and promptly killed him. Yay, armed society! /s
The quote I’ve heard most often:
No law (sometimes: piece of paper) is going to stop a criminal from committing a crime.
Truly one of the dumbest takes of all time. If laws weren’t at least somewhat effective, there would be no point in having laws.
“bad people are going to do bad things anyway, may as well make it easier for them!”
deleted by creator
Sad watching people like you type out a bunch of nonsense as though it’s true.
I guess that’s why people like you are so ‘up in arms’ about gun control; you’re living in a fantasy world where you think that criminals don’t have guns in other developed nations.
The guy who killed Shinzo Abe in Japan literally had to build the gun and was only able to do so efficiently because he was an ex-member of the JMSDF.
That’s how hard it is to get a gun in Japan. And surprise! They have one of the lowest homicide rates in the world.
Nice cherrypicking.
Thanks for supporting my point about living in a fantasy world, lol.
And surprise! They have one of the lowest homicide rates in the world.
It must be the guns, right? Not their culture? What about nations that ban guns but have higher homicide rates than Japan or even the U.S.?
What about nations that ban guns but have higher homicide rates than Japan or even the U.S.?
The only countries that fit this definition outside Central/South America and Sub-Saharian Africa are Russia, Myanmar, Papua New Guinea, Palau and Kiribati.
Literally all of Europe and all of Asia with a functioning democracy have a lower homicide rate than the US. I wouldn’t really call that “cherrypicking”.
Is that what you’re comparing to? You think the US police would be as bad at enforcing a gun control law as the one in Kiribati?
So… what you’re telling me is it’s not just the guns. It’s their culture.
Interesting. I guess we can agree that banning guns doesn’t actually reduce homicide rates if the nation has people who want to kill each other.
I wouldn’t really call that “cherrypicking”.
Lol, so ignoring everything that goes against your argument isn’t cherrypicking? Dang. Stay in school, son.
Wow, didn’t know that the entire civilized world except the US has absolutely no desire to kill each other, and all of the underdeveloped countries are full of bloodthirsty assassins.
Guess the very similar culture of Japan, Italy and Australia must be the cause.
It almost feels like the countries with high homicide rate despite the gun laws could have some correlation to being less civilized places with high corruption and/or inefficient law enforcement, but you definitely know better than me I guess.
Dang, there you go thinking in absolutes because you want to avoid information that goes against your arguments.
You mentioned homicide rates. They’re not 0 on any of the continents you mentioned. Why are you arguing against me as though I think there’s no desire to kill in the nations you mentioned?
Homicide rates are lower in some nations than others, regardless of gun laws, because of their culture. Why is this so difficult for you to understand?
This is my point. You will avoid any information that contradicts what you want to believe and then get mad when people don’t live in your fantasy world.
It’s weird, my guns have never committed a mass shooting, yet people say that they’re a problem…
A 1km ball of enriched uranium has never committed murder, either. Should I drop one by your pillow at night?
Not a single shooting has been stopped by a good guy with a gun? Here’s some light reading for you.
Indiana shooter stopped by civilian
Why would you make a claim that us so easily debunked? What purpose did that serve?
Over 500 mass shootings. And that’s this year alone.
So yah, EXTREMELY light reading bro.
I feel like there’s some room to explore how many needless deaths have occurred the the hands of overzealous gun owners. I’ll be honest, I don’t know the statistics on “rightful” and “wrongful” executions.
There’s at least two side to every argument, focusing on one side in any argument will only allow you to prove your own point.
deleted by creator
That’s your takeaway? Why even comment?
deleted by creator
I hope the writer for this article makes residuals. They’re getting a lot of use out of it
They do actually rewrite it slightly each time they repost it, even though the title is the same
They just change the date, city, number of victims, and then change the fake person’s name for the quote. The rest stays exactly the same.
Yes, that’s how all news sites do it now
But in this case it’s part of the point of the repeating article that the article is nearly identical every time
It would be darkly funny if they had an “____ Days Since We Had to Repost This” counter for it.
It will be stuck at 0
Removed by mod
He was committed to a mental health facility for two weeks in the summer of 2023. He’s talked about hearing voices. He’s threatened to shoot up a National Guard station. He and his associates are well-known local right-wing militia gun nuts that “people knew to stay away from.” None of that was sufficient to restrict his access to firearms.
If this is true, then I think it’s safe to say that these shootings aren’t being taken seriously by our government on purpose. I don’t know what the purpose is, but it sure feels like it.
Some of those who work forces are the same that burn crosses.
The best thing about Rage songs is that they’re still relevant after 30 years.
The worst thing about Rage songs is that they’re still relevant after 30 years.
Criminals On Patrol
Criminals On Patrol
The GOP benefits from these attacks in my view, especially when they’re in power. It makes it impossible for the news to cover the reprehensible things they do when mass murders happen every week.
:(
If you’re terrified of being shot you won’t mind having armed police everywhere.
But that’s why I’m terrified of being shot
The only way to assuage your fear of being shot is to arm more people.
Ok, so I’m not crazy.
I don’t even really care about guns. I don’t like them and wish there were far fewer of them, but if reducing the number and availability of guns is off the table, there’s still plenty of room to work – and if this political conversation had even one shred of honesty, we’d be working even with that constraint.
Even in gun policy, there’s so much reform we could make to reduce danger that doesn’t impact someone’s ability to own a gun. For example, universal registration, repeal the Dickey amendment and fund research, impose strict liability to gun owners for crimes committed with their guns.
And most people seem to support red flag laws and universal background checks, but for some reason we can’t expand those either?
Not to mention that it is a simple matter of fact that the US can and does ban all kinds of arms. And, aside from a tiny lunatic fringe, no one really thinks it is an issue. You can’t just have and bring with you a fighter jet, a tank. You can’t open carry explosive ordinance. You can’t go to a gun show and buy chemical WMDs or bio-weapons. You can’t drive around with a full machine gun mounted to the flatbed of your 3-ton pickup. We have rules that are uncontentious, and the idea that maybe some types of modern guns should be in the same category is fiddling with a line in the sand.
And guns are only a small part of the picture. We need poverty intervention and social welfare. We need consent-based policing and the better training that comes with it. We need to fix our urban design so people have better third places and are less isolated from one another. Yet if you try to do anything like this, the same people that fetishize guns will absolutely refuse to even think about it and will indeed try to roll back what does exist to make the problems worse.
At the end, it’s a very two-sided debate. One side wants to test and try changes to make things maybe even just a bit better. The other refuses to do anything and would like for it to even be a bit worse.
“if only Americans were smarter” we can just leave it at that. This fucking country is full of idiots who will never do any good in this world because they’re too stupid to even know where to start
Wait, did it happen again?
Last night, Lewiston ME.
old news, there’s been another in Samson County, NC today.
The US media should save time and report on days when mass shootings don’t happen.
Yeah, yesterday unfortunately.
Shit… Sorry guys, don’t know what to say…
“We did nothing and we are all out of options!”
Removed by mod
Comparing it to cars just makes it even more obvious. You need a license to drive one. If your eyesight is too bad, they won’t let you drivr. Your doctor can advise against you driving for many reasons and your license gets revoked.
Also you need insurance which I think would be great for any gun owner anywhere.
Removed by mod
Also, y’know, cars kill and maim a crazy amount of people and we should be trying to get rid of as many of them too.
I agree, but at the very least, cars aren’t designed with the specific purpose of killing people.
Removed by mod
I agree, you can take someone’s car away for several reasons, but don’t you dare take their murder devices.
Removed by mod
Honestly in this last one I think the proper authorities really dropped the ball. As soon as this guy went into a mental facility he should have been flagged for having guns and steps should have been taken to restrict his access to them. You’re using a very broad brush to paint all gun owners one way when it’s absolutely not the case. Some people take self defense extremely seriously. Look out at human history. Look out at the natural world. Killing is a serious constant in life. If you want to see what people are capable of when one group of people have guns and another doesn’t, look at Israel v Gaza. Look at slavery. Small groups of people can control large groups of people solely for having guns. So coming back to self defense, the gun is the greatest equalizer, unfortunately. I believe in having smart, efficient, and effective gun laws, but at the end of the day I only put 100% faith in myself for protecting myself.
I think everyone I’ve talked to who carries a gun hopes to never have to use it in a life or death situation. I love guns and hate people who use them to kill.
The passive voice in the second sentence is very telling. Who should have flagged him? Who should have taken steps to restrict his access to guns? Who had access to that information in order to put the pieces of the puzzle together, and take action? Our society and government doesn’t have a proactive mechanism to so. It is explicitly not the duty of the police. Our system is reactive; some private citizen could have petitioned a court of law, but who has the time, money, and interest to do it?
Removed by mod
It sounds like the whole community knew, given the reports that everybody in town knew to avoid the guy. It’s just our society and legal system makes it everybody’s responsibility to deal with it, and near-impossible to actually do anything useful, which in practice means it’s nobody’s responsibility. Kind of like climate change, or car crashes.
Removed by mod
I mean, there are states that will deny someone a firearms license if they have been to a mental facility within a certain period of time. Even after that amount of time is up, you have to take a psych eval before being able to reapply for the license. So, the way I see it, what I’m saying isn’t too far off from being implemented.
Yeah, it’s not impossible, nor necessarily all that difficult. States just need to make it somebody’s job, and set up a system that funnels them the information about troubled people, and gives them the resources and authority to act on it.
